The importance of numbers

Quantifying the benefits of New Urbanism poses problems for two reasons. First, the movement is so new that sufficient built examples for study are lacking. Second, some of the benefits are spiritual, and therefore defy measurement. How does one gauge the feeling of being able to walk in a quality civic environment? However, opinions, and even well-formed logical arguments, only go so far. Many of those who really bring about big changes in the built environment — especially developers, financial institutions and engineers — rely on hard data. Fortunately, many claims that have been made by proponents of New Urbanism can be measured, and recent studies strongly support the movement. For example, new urbanists long have argued that household automobile costs can be reduced substantially through the building of compact, urban neighborhoods. Households who live in compact, urban areas, drive as little as four times fewer miles than their counterparts in low-density suburban areas (see New Urban News, July, 1997), according to research. These findings hold true across all categories of income. Remarkable studies In the current issue, two remarkable studies are reported. A groundbreaking study conducted in Longmont, Colorado, comparing safety to street width, may shake the foundations of municipal ordinances nationwide (see page one of this issue). Remarkably, according to the researchers’ literature search, no one has directly compared street width to overall public safety before. The findings strongly favor the narrow streets preferred by neotraditional planners. That runs directly counter to assumptions made by municipal officials (especially fire chiefs), who frequently force new urban designers and developers to widen streets unnecessarily, on the assertion that wider streets are safer. New urbanists have stated all along, with little empirical data to back up their claims, that narrow streets at least are as safe as wide streets. Another claim by new urbanists is that good civic design featuring walkable streets and pleasant public spaces adds real value to a project. This claim has been disputed by some skeptical real estate developers and marketers who claim that many homebuyers will not purchase a house located close to the street on a narrow, smaller lot with a detached garage. Now a thorough, unbiased study shows that, at least in the neotraditional development Kentlands, New Urbanism adds substantial market value (see page one of this issue). More research needed These studies need to be expanded and replicated as soon as possible. The Longmont study suggests that modern design criteria for streets is endangering millions of Americans. If that is true, then public officials and the public in general need to be alerted as soon as possible, and there ought to be a nationwide push for reform. That would remove a major barrier to building new urban projects. From the perspective of developers and real estate financiers, the Kentlands study is extremely important. If the findings hold true for other new urban projects, they offer a substantial incentive for investors and developers to put money into neotraditional projects, overcoming the perceived risk of a new concept. These studies represent an important step in the transition of New Urbanism from a fringe movement to the mainstream. While the “voices in the wilderness” have been effective in getting their message heard, New Urbanism must be supported by numbers that the money counters and engineers, politicians and public can understand.